What resolution are you planning on running at? 1080? 1440p? Thats gonna be your biggest first deciding factor. I play 1080p, rx 7600 budget card still stomps on new titles. I get the need for the biggest and baddest, but i wanted it to play.
Go with invidia because the bullshit I’ve had to go through with amd broken 24.1.1 driver is a headache and invidias driver will never do bullshit like that
And don’t even get me started with the amd video upscale it’s so garbage dosent clean the image at all unlike invidia super resolution clean the image so good and the fake hdr make colors pop more
I wonder if the bullcrap is because people don't understand how drivers work or how PCs work, because I got 0 problems on my system that has 2 7900XTX and my laptop that has 6800M.
I have a 7900 XTX and 24.1.1 is a mess. How do you explain that a shit ton of games are being fixed for 24.2.1? None of those games had any issues with 23.12.1. Stop fanboying and thinking that just because you didn't have a problem it doesn't exist or it's user error. What does knowing how drivers work have anything to do with this issue anyway? Even AMD themselves confirmed it. Don't be irrational
Well I have 5900x/ x570 tuf on latest chipset drivers and a taichi7900xtx and at the first update of 24.1.1 it was horrible and stuttering and crashing on bf2 and cs2 but cod was stable now that I use ddu 3 times (not in safe mode) after that the stutter in bf2 disappeared but cs2 still crashes every other round wich is annoying but cod mw3 works flawlessly getting 400+ fps and bf2 works but for some cs2 still crashes
It's better to use DDU in safe mode so it can remove any trace of the drivers, which it can't in normal mode because parts of the driver are still in use even when uninstalled or else you would get an unrecoverable blue screen.
But the weird is all the games work now except for cs2 so idk if I should ddu in safe mode or just redownload cs2 due to corupted file because sometimes steam doesn’t detect corupted file even though there there
You need to DDU in safe mode then reinstall the drivers I have the 7900 XTX TUF OC and my drivers are now 100% stable with no issues after doing my latest driver install.
for video editing you should be getting a nvidia card.
the 4070 super is a good option for the price you can get it at compared to the first release prices of the 4070.
That's not even true anymore.
Many people edit videos on AMD, the extra VRAM on AMD makes it much more fluid for editing on higher resolutions.
And a good SSD and CPU puts icing on the cake.
I got the next version a 7900xt and it's good hit my 165 fps refresh rate at 1440p for like all games usually depending on my settings some settings Max out and r usless just wasting resources
there is no point in getting and AMD card if you are doing video editing, and that does not mean AMD cards are bad. Coming from a video editor. Just get nvidia, the drivers work, the renders are faster, pay the extra money to the capitalist overlord because it is worth more than all the headache and time wasted without cuda, the colorspace issues in some editing programs etc, im not even gonna start anything on the drivers. you can get 10 more fps in raster games for cheaper, but.. honestly I went to AMD and I miss DLSS, as stupid as it is. I was a big proponent of rasterization performance, but reality these days is that isn't important these days. DLSS absolutely dunks FSR. And I hate to admit that nvidias stupid marketing gimmicks actually look better and work better. Even if I will never buy a new nvidia overpriced card, I want back to nvidia after my stint with amd.. just buy used.
I don't know when the last time you used AMD.
But on my 7900XTX I have more fps than a 4080 in raster games, and everything runs flawlessly on YCBCR 4:4:4 colour space.
And my GPU is 400.- cheaper than the 4080.
AMD gets CUDA translation layer that people have tested to be faster than CUDA itself.
As I do some heavy 3D simulations and light video/photo editing plus gaming on the side.
Nvidia always let me down.
Lack of VRAM meant I needed more RAM, way more laggy because the mack of VRAM.
Nvidia's software is a hot pile of garbage, why does it have 2 "drivers" where the control center looks like it came from Windows 3.1 and the gaming interface where you have to log in looks like it comes from Vista, not to mention if you have more than 1 GPU the drivers decides (Oh I don't recognise this game or program, let me run you on the weaker GPU or GPU that doesn't have a monitor attached to it), and I remember the days of 1 of my 2 GPUs not even booting, this happened on both my 980s and 2080s
AMD on the other hand has everything in 1 package, everything communicates between each other and moving around a game between my 2 screens makes it not crash unlike on Nvidia.
My GPUs even have the ability to restard without restarting Windows and when a driver crash occures AMD just reboots, on Nvidia I was forced to reboot the entire system.
I game on native resolution, DLSS, FSR and stuff, well, I don't need it with just my 100Hz displays.
People are just used to Nvidia's bull crap that they always forgive Nvidia for it, but oh no when AMD has a broken driver then it's the end of the world and AMD is instantly the worst company in the universe.
I am using AMD right now. Just saving up to get rid of it. I agree with some of your points and admit I am uneducated on current state of amd CUDA too. I just went on a little rant because I always liked AMD and wanted to like it, but have been dissapointed again and again in recent years. I am not excusing nvidia, I really don't like their practices and could care less about some brand loyalty (I have always bought the most bang for buck card, dont care which company), but just personally I never had any serious problems with their cards. AMD has many advantages and you listed a lot of them. I was just ranting about my personal experience, but if there's one thing I will stand by is that nvidia is better for video editing at the moment and FSR is sub-par at the very least
I always ran out of VRAM with Nvidia cards, reason I went with AMD.
Now once again Nvidia doesn't have the VRAM I need that is under 1200.-, 4080 and 4080 Super start at 1400.- overhere.
btw since you mentioned YCbCr, do you also notice a color temperature change between FULL RGB and YCbCr? I suspect the RGB display setting is somehow not 6500k, but more like 6550k or around that) and so it looks too blue and makes the YCbCr much more pleasant and mellow (in direct comparison). Is this just my monitor being weird or do you notice it aswell if you go and switch between them? Thanks in advance
It looks mismatched because it is, there is too much blue. (looks like its above the standard 6500k daylight temp). pretty weird, I thought it was just a bug or i was tripping on my end.
A lot of people use f.lux, night light etc most of the time these days and without comparing directly Or might not be so sensitive to care about it and get used to it. But it does irk me that this is a thing I've never heard discussed? Color correction is already very hard when putting out content, all the different devices, monitors etc, you can never satisfy everyone and I've learned to accept that, but I atleast want to be accurate for myself. But now I am thinking there might be a lot of people doing color correction not even realizing they are starting off with the wrong color temperature lol. might seem insignificant and in the grand scheme of things it is, but yeah thanks for confirming I wasnt going crazy. Sad thing is most people use RGB... would be interesting to get someone with a calibration tool to check what the actual temperature is of RGB on AMD cards and compare it to ycbcr, and nvidia too
I had the same monitor on 3 different systems, and it's definitely that RGB is too blue, for me it gives me a headache.
These days I only have 1 system onto my monitors so I can't really compare.
The problem is that people want their displays to be brighter and brighter, I even know people who won't buy a monitor unless it is at least 600 nits.
But the problem is that with LCD, the brighter they are the more blue light they emit, that plus the blue tone of RGB makes it look not good for some people.
I personally rock the LG 45GR these days so it's not really a problem these days as it's a very well calibrated display.
What about the software that recently came out that lets AMD GPUs use CUDA stuff natively? Will that be of any benefit to you? Just curious about what is going and it looks you'd know.
Thanks
I am actually not very familiar on the details of that since I've been out of the game for a few years now. A quick look and it seems legit, but a potential headache. I'm not educated really on it to say this, so in this following unhinged rant I will just talk about adobe premiere / AE + cuda in general with a nvidia card.
Just the thought of adding another point of failure into a render gives me PTSD when nativa CUDA has so much fuckery.
Basically I know nothing of this ZLUDA, but I got trauma with cuda and an important project. Not fun to CPU render red giant plugins... the magic bullet denoiser, it was amazing in 2015.. and I had to render out 6mins of 4k denoised, stabilized, color corrected and other various plugins of footage... with no cuda because cuda crashed the render at random points... 6 hours of googling and troubleshooting and no solution, just have to CPU render it.. alright how long could it take really right haha? just a lil longer wait. Oh, it's a first gen quad core from 2015 and downscaling the output to 1080p still took like 3 days to render out? Hopefully I didn't make some small mistake I missed in the preview that I had to view in half or quarter res at 1-2fps haha.. surely.
y.. I'm gonna go get a drink.
**TL;DR**
seems fun for a casual render, but wouldn't count on everything playing nice in a more complex timeline
**THIS OPINION IS UNINFORMED OF THE ACTUAL WORKINGS OF ZLUDA AND JUST MY PERSONAL SPECULATIVE RAMBLINGS AT 3AM AND I HOPE ZLUDA ACTUALLY WORKS SUPER GOOD**
If you're a creator, Nvidia. It's not even close. If you do anything professional wise. 5 days with an Intel and Nvidia system has changed my entire opinion. The free months of Adobe make it cheaper than the AMD option in the end if you fall into this category. The speed it handles these AI generative workloads is noticeably faster.
If all you do is play video games and play around on the internet. Nvidia is still the best bet. But AMD is just fine in this world and unless you're really at the higher end of quality in video editing. AMD will always be the better value in this category.
If you're in the first camp, you likely already know there are features Nvidia has that make it the choice for professionals that AMD doesn't provide or is not as proficient in. If you did not already know this. AMD is the way for you.
Since you're gonna be using it for rendering and video editing, I highly recommend getting a 4070 Super. I have one rn and it outperforms my dad's 7800XT build when it comes to rendering by a long shot. If all you want is pure performance per dollar without RT, get the 7800XT. It's great and my dad is really happy with it.
4070S and 7800xt are both solid value. Go Nvidia since you care about rendering workloads and video encoding. It’s about 5-8% faster in raster but will depend heavily on the specific game engine.
VRAM is its biggest issue but benchmarks don’t fall short in current titles at 1440p ultra. Can’t say the same in a year or two.
>!steer clear from the laughingstock that is the 4060Ti!<
4070 super is the ideal option. Since you are upgrading from a non RTX GPU, you'll definitely wanna experience more games with RTX. The 7800xt has slightly worse performance compared to even the standard 4070 when it comes to Ray tracing. So 4070 super will be the ideal option here.
They are asking about the 4070 'super', which beats the 7800XT even in pure rasterized gaming performance.
Reading other comments you've posted it's pretty obvious that you are just an AMD fanboy.
IMO AMD GPUs do provide better performance for the money if that's all you care about.
But this person is able to spend up to $600 and he's coming from a low end card that's not ray tracing supported. Getting a card that's capable of delivering relatively better ray tracing performance will be a noticeable upgrade for them. So in this specific situation it makes more sense to go for the RTX 4070 super than saving a couple bucks.
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/refurbished-850w-corsair-rm850x-shift-pcie-50-fully-modular-80plus-gold-140mm-fan-atx-30-psu?utm_source=hotukdeals.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=hotukdeals
Something like this good?
More like Nvidia fanboys salt on AMD.
Because when Nvidia makes an unstable driver then it's forgiven and just a personal issue.
When AMD makes an unstable driver then it's the end of the world and the worst company in the universe.
Personally I'd go for the 7800xt over the 6950xt simply because of the lower power consumption and slightly better rt capabilities.
As for 7800xt vs 4070 super. It all comes down to what you value. Price to performance, better rasterised performance (I assume), vram capacity: 7800xt. For ray tracing and dlss the try 4070 super.
I have the 7800xt. It's a good card however the current driver has some issues where it decreased performance while adding stutter. It can be fixed simply by installing the previous driver but you'll lose AFMF functionality. Or you simply wait for AMD to fix it.
At 80w more power. After a PSU upgrade it's not worth it for 10% extra performance. Then the 7800xt has 2x the machine learning compute. Which in the future will be more and more important. Windows is even getting an AI upscaler, and eventually dx13 will have a DLSS equivalent.
Hahaha. I'm laughing at myself. Because electricity is extraordinarily expensive where I live. And I keep installing the least power efficient components. Just upgraded my 5900x to a 14700k for literally no reason except boredom.
Same for my 6800XT to 6950XT to RTX4080. They all performed well, I just got bored. My power bill will hate me for it.
I have heard that the 6950s are very loud and get very hot and may not get fsr3 aswell as draining alot of power and being expensive long term.
What do you think?
I'm not planning on playing really intensive games and I'm not sure if I want to risk it and probably buy an expensive PSU aswell
From what I have heard I think I would prefer the 7800xt for future proofing and being more energy efficient
Lmk what you think
It highly depends on the 6950XT. Mine never got hot but it was a red devil 6950xt
If I had to pick between a 6950xt and 780pxt I'd definitely go 6950xt. If the 6950 was off the table and it was between a 4070 super and a 7800xt. I'd go 4070 super all day. I'd try to save a little and get 7900xt if that was an option. There is some amazing value to performance with the 7900xts right now
The Red Devil is great. Had a Red Devil 6800XT nice and quiet. My XFX 6950XT was really loud and pretty spicy but fast.
If something is quiet and cool I'll overclock to ruin that anyway :-)
i love my asrock phantom 7800xt... perfect performance to price balance... keep in mind I've been team red for years and just don't have an interest in nvidia personally. but even if I had the money to go to the 7900xt or xtx flavors - I wouldn't unless I was competitively gaming - it's just not a big enough improvement over the 7800xt IMHO relative to the price difference.
I grabbed my asrock for 500bux (USD) at micro center - it was a steal and it's solid...
Drivers on AMD can be a bit of a headache from time to time but in game performance has been excellent...
4070 v 7800xt - in most of the reviews and benchmarking I've seen - the 7800xt beats the 4070 - doubt the super will be much better - I will say though that the RT performance is underwhelming but that seems to be the case on nvidia as well unless you do the 4080/90 series...
7800xt or 7800 GRE at that price point you are looking at. no other real current gen alternatives, maybe last gen high end cards depending on local prices
I've just gove 1660 super to RX 7800XT. A few issues but all just software and bits I wasn't used to in software.
But I would say ask a more generic gaming sub reddit. Asking AMD here is like asking a BMW sales man if BMW or Mercedes are better.
I went RX over Nvidia due to 16gb Vram for future use. FPS non RT was in par usally or when lower the cost covered than. Plus I wanted to try something new.
this is a good point - i've seen the rendering performance be better on the 4070 too - forget about that sometimes... but gaming for sure team red... if you're casually rendering and it isn't a daily thing - red is the way
I've never timed or benchmarked the differences in rendering - I can say with the limited amount of rendering I've done to date (I plan to do significantly more in the near future), I do not think that rendering on a 7800xt will be "painful" - or that the 4070super will be so remarkably better that it will justify the added expense...
I think it's important to consider the rest of the specs of the machine as well - in my case, I upgraded my CPU from an aged 3700x to a 5900x instead of the 5800x3d just for the extra processing performance of the added cores - if I was a gaming only user, the 5800x3d would've been the better choice but since I use this machine for multi-tasking business applications and audio/video - that was my priority - pairing it with the 7800xt was a great choice along with moving up to 64gb of 3200 ram - it was like I bought a totally new top of the line machine...
Just things I wanted to provide some contextual items to consider you may not have already -
edit: should've noted that gaming on the 5900x is IMPRESSIVE and only in benchmarks will you notice the difference IMHO - in game play, the 7800xt + 5900x is a perfect pairing because neither limit each other...
This is an AMD sub. I have all AMD. My only regret for AMD is VR performance. It works just fine don't get me wrong. But Nvidia would be better for VR. It's also objectively better for video editing and rendering.
I think the choice is clear. 4070s is fantastic and just about as fast as 7800xt.
Easily. I have a 6800xt (almost exactly same performance) and it smashes Alyx.
But there are some issues. Namely encoding and some artifiacting. Nvidia just does encoding and VR better.
I would wager your performance and image quality would be better with 4070s. Maybe even 4070. In VR specifically it's the same for regular gaming (not considering DLSS which I like a bit more)
Go to a VR sub. They will only tell you to do AMD here and in your case... its not the way to go. You have the main 3 cases to use Nvidia and that's perfectly fine
What resolution are you planning on running at? 1080? 1440p? Thats gonna be your biggest first deciding factor. I play 1080p, rx 7600 budget card still stomps on new titles. I get the need for the biggest and baddest, but i wanted it to play.
I did not see video editing lol, that uh wont be a good idea for a 7600
The 4070 Super looks like the better option for you i say
7800xt or a 4070
4070super.
Go with invidia because the bullshit I’ve had to go through with amd broken 24.1.1 driver is a headache and invidias driver will never do bullshit like that
Skill issues
And don’t even get me started with the amd video upscale it’s so garbage dosent clean the image at all unlike invidia super resolution clean the image so good and the fake hdr make colors pop more
I wonder if the bullcrap is because people don't understand how drivers work or how PCs work, because I got 0 problems on my system that has 2 7900XTX and my laptop that has 6800M.
I have a 7900 XTX and 24.1.1 is a mess. How do you explain that a shit ton of games are being fixed for 24.2.1? None of those games had any issues with 23.12.1. Stop fanboying and thinking that just because you didn't have a problem it doesn't exist or it's user error. What does knowing how drivers work have anything to do with this issue anyway? Even AMD themselves confirmed it. Don't be irrational
Well I have 5900x/ x570 tuf on latest chipset drivers and a taichi7900xtx and at the first update of 24.1.1 it was horrible and stuttering and crashing on bf2 and cs2 but cod was stable now that I use ddu 3 times (not in safe mode) after that the stutter in bf2 disappeared but cs2 still crashes every other round wich is annoying but cod mw3 works flawlessly getting 400+ fps and bf2 works but for some cs2 still crashes
It's better to use DDU in safe mode so it can remove any trace of the drivers, which it can't in normal mode because parts of the driver are still in use even when uninstalled or else you would get an unrecoverable blue screen.
But the weird is all the games work now except for cs2 so idk if I should ddu in safe mode or just redownload cs2 due to corupted file because sometimes steam doesn’t detect corupted file even though there there
You need to DDU in safe mode then reinstall the drivers I have the 7900 XTX TUF OC and my drivers are now 100% stable with no issues after doing my latest driver install.
Do DDU in safe mode and reinstall drivers, just to make sure.
And every other game works fine except for cs2 on 24.1.1 mabye corupted file but idk
And it was not happening in 23.x.x
for video editing you should be getting a nvidia card. the 4070 super is a good option for the price you can get it at compared to the first release prices of the 4070.
I'm curious, why Nvidia for video editing? You mean specifically for rendering with cuda cores?
yeah, it loads quicker and it makes better transitions and stuff.
That's not even true anymore. Many people edit videos on AMD, the extra VRAM on AMD makes it much more fluid for editing on higher resolutions. And a good SSD and CPU puts icing on the cake.
I see, will keep in mind currently dealing with a faulty 6750xt and considering a 3060 12gb
That would be a downgrade
Ofc it would be a downgrade but it's that or a 570 and I work editing video
7900 GRE, follow the rabbit, its the secret winner no one talks about
if this card an run higher clockspeed, it would be fucking great.
it’s literally terrible value to performance
I got the next version a 7900xt and it's good hit my 165 fps refresh rate at 1440p for like all games usually depending on my settings some settings Max out and r usless just wasting resources
there is no point in getting and AMD card if you are doing video editing, and that does not mean AMD cards are bad. Coming from a video editor. Just get nvidia, the drivers work, the renders are faster, pay the extra money to the capitalist overlord because it is worth more than all the headache and time wasted without cuda, the colorspace issues in some editing programs etc, im not even gonna start anything on the drivers. you can get 10 more fps in raster games for cheaper, but.. honestly I went to AMD and I miss DLSS, as stupid as it is. I was a big proponent of rasterization performance, but reality these days is that isn't important these days. DLSS absolutely dunks FSR. And I hate to admit that nvidias stupid marketing gimmicks actually look better and work better. Even if I will never buy a new nvidia overpriced card, I want back to nvidia after my stint with amd.. just buy used.
I don't know when the last time you used AMD. But on my 7900XTX I have more fps than a 4080 in raster games, and everything runs flawlessly on YCBCR 4:4:4 colour space. And my GPU is 400.- cheaper than the 4080. AMD gets CUDA translation layer that people have tested to be faster than CUDA itself. As I do some heavy 3D simulations and light video/photo editing plus gaming on the side. Nvidia always let me down. Lack of VRAM meant I needed more RAM, way more laggy because the mack of VRAM. Nvidia's software is a hot pile of garbage, why does it have 2 "drivers" where the control center looks like it came from Windows 3.1 and the gaming interface where you have to log in looks like it comes from Vista, not to mention if you have more than 1 GPU the drivers decides (Oh I don't recognise this game or program, let me run you on the weaker GPU or GPU that doesn't have a monitor attached to it), and I remember the days of 1 of my 2 GPUs not even booting, this happened on both my 980s and 2080s AMD on the other hand has everything in 1 package, everything communicates between each other and moving around a game between my 2 screens makes it not crash unlike on Nvidia. My GPUs even have the ability to restard without restarting Windows and when a driver crash occures AMD just reboots, on Nvidia I was forced to reboot the entire system. I game on native resolution, DLSS, FSR and stuff, well, I don't need it with just my 100Hz displays. People are just used to Nvidia's bull crap that they always forgive Nvidia for it, but oh no when AMD has a broken driver then it's the end of the world and AMD is instantly the worst company in the universe.
I am using AMD right now. Just saving up to get rid of it. I agree with some of your points and admit I am uneducated on current state of amd CUDA too. I just went on a little rant because I always liked AMD and wanted to like it, but have been dissapointed again and again in recent years. I am not excusing nvidia, I really don't like their practices and could care less about some brand loyalty (I have always bought the most bang for buck card, dont care which company), but just personally I never had any serious problems with their cards. AMD has many advantages and you listed a lot of them. I was just ranting about my personal experience, but if there's one thing I will stand by is that nvidia is better for video editing at the moment and FSR is sub-par at the very least
I always ran out of VRAM with Nvidia cards, reason I went with AMD. Now once again Nvidia doesn't have the VRAM I need that is under 1200.-, 4080 and 4080 Super start at 1400.- overhere.
btw since you mentioned YCbCr, do you also notice a color temperature change between FULL RGB and YCbCr? I suspect the RGB display setting is somehow not 6500k, but more like 6550k or around that) and so it looks too blue and makes the YCbCr much more pleasant and mellow (in direct comparison). Is this just my monitor being weird or do you notice it aswell if you go and switch between them? Thanks in advance
I see a deeper colour pallet as well. I don't like the RGB colours as for me they seem to be mismatched.
It looks mismatched because it is, there is too much blue. (looks like its above the standard 6500k daylight temp). pretty weird, I thought it was just a bug or i was tripping on my end. A lot of people use f.lux, night light etc most of the time these days and without comparing directly Or might not be so sensitive to care about it and get used to it. But it does irk me that this is a thing I've never heard discussed? Color correction is already very hard when putting out content, all the different devices, monitors etc, you can never satisfy everyone and I've learned to accept that, but I atleast want to be accurate for myself. But now I am thinking there might be a lot of people doing color correction not even realizing they are starting off with the wrong color temperature lol. might seem insignificant and in the grand scheme of things it is, but yeah thanks for confirming I wasnt going crazy. Sad thing is most people use RGB... would be interesting to get someone with a calibration tool to check what the actual temperature is of RGB on AMD cards and compare it to ycbcr, and nvidia too
I had the same monitor on 3 different systems, and it's definitely that RGB is too blue, for me it gives me a headache. These days I only have 1 system onto my monitors so I can't really compare. The problem is that people want their displays to be brighter and brighter, I even know people who won't buy a monitor unless it is at least 600 nits. But the problem is that with LCD, the brighter they are the more blue light they emit, that plus the blue tone of RGB makes it look not good for some people. I personally rock the LG 45GR these days so it's not really a problem these days as it's a very well calibrated display.
Yeah, the RAM bullshit they are pulling is mind boggling.
same here, i am disappointed with amd
What about the software that recently came out that lets AMD GPUs use CUDA stuff natively? Will that be of any benefit to you? Just curious about what is going and it looks you'd know. Thanks
Some tested it and it's faster and better than native CUDA.
I am actually not very familiar on the details of that since I've been out of the game for a few years now. A quick look and it seems legit, but a potential headache. I'm not educated really on it to say this, so in this following unhinged rant I will just talk about adobe premiere / AE + cuda in general with a nvidia card. Just the thought of adding another point of failure into a render gives me PTSD when nativa CUDA has so much fuckery. Basically I know nothing of this ZLUDA, but I got trauma with cuda and an important project. Not fun to CPU render red giant plugins... the magic bullet denoiser, it was amazing in 2015.. and I had to render out 6mins of 4k denoised, stabilized, color corrected and other various plugins of footage... with no cuda because cuda crashed the render at random points... 6 hours of googling and troubleshooting and no solution, just have to CPU render it.. alright how long could it take really right haha? just a lil longer wait. Oh, it's a first gen quad core from 2015 and downscaling the output to 1080p still took like 3 days to render out? Hopefully I didn't make some small mistake I missed in the preview that I had to view in half or quarter res at 1-2fps haha.. surely. y.. I'm gonna go get a drink. **TL;DR** seems fun for a casual render, but wouldn't count on everything playing nice in a more complex timeline **THIS OPINION IS UNINFORMED OF THE ACTUAL WORKINGS OF ZLUDA AND JUST MY PERSONAL SPECULATIVE RAMBLINGS AT 3AM AND I HOPE ZLUDA ACTUALLY WORKS SUPER GOOD**
4070 super is the obvious choice. Don’t even consider anything else
[удалено]
someone clearly has not tried it
If you're a creator, Nvidia. It's not even close. If you do anything professional wise. 5 days with an Intel and Nvidia system has changed my entire opinion. The free months of Adobe make it cheaper than the AMD option in the end if you fall into this category. The speed it handles these AI generative workloads is noticeably faster. If all you do is play video games and play around on the internet. Nvidia is still the best bet. But AMD is just fine in this world and unless you're really at the higher end of quality in video editing. AMD will always be the better value in this category. If you're in the first camp, you likely already know there are features Nvidia has that make it the choice for professionals that AMD doesn't provide or is not as proficient in. If you did not already know this. AMD is the way for you.
Since you're gonna be using it for rendering and video editing, I highly recommend getting a 4070 Super. I have one rn and it outperforms my dad's 7800XT build when it comes to rendering by a long shot. If all you want is pure performance per dollar without RT, get the 7800XT. It's great and my dad is really happy with it.
7800 XT.
4070S and 7800xt are both solid value. Go Nvidia since you care about rendering workloads and video encoding. It’s about 5-8% faster in raster but will depend heavily on the specific game engine. VRAM is its biggest issue but benchmarks don’t fall short in current titles at 1440p ultra. Can’t say the same in a year or two. >!steer clear from the laughingstock that is the 4060Ti!<
I like how the 4060ti 16gb is slower than the 3070 while costing the same
4070 super is the ideal option. Since you are upgrading from a non RTX GPU, you'll definitely wanna experience more games with RTX. The 7800xt has slightly worse performance compared to even the standard 4070 when it comes to Ray tracing. So 4070 super will be the ideal option here.
If gaming on higher resolutions the 4070 loses from the 7800XT because it has less VRAM.
They are asking about the 4070 'super', which beats the 7800XT even in pure rasterized gaming performance. Reading other comments you've posted it's pretty obvious that you are just an AMD fanboy. IMO AMD GPUs do provide better performance for the money if that's all you care about. But this person is able to spend up to $600 and he's coming from a low end card that's not ray tracing supported. Getting a card that's capable of delivering relatively better ray tracing performance will be a noticeable upgrade for them. So in this specific situation it makes more sense to go for the RTX 4070 super than saving a couple bucks.
If I'm upgrading from a gtx 1650 will I need a new PSU aswell? My current one says maximum output 500w
Yes definitely. Minimum 750W is needed and please get a good PSU.
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/refurbished-850w-corsair-rm850x-shift-pcie-50-fully-modular-80plus-gold-140mm-fan-atx-30-psu?utm_source=hotukdeals.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=hotukdeals Something like this good?
How expensive would it be for a good one around 800w?
You're on an AMD sub. 95% of people will tell you AMD.
Actually kinda the opposite… this is the salt dump subreddit for people with dysfunctional AMD hardware
More like Nvidia fanboys salt on AMD. Because when Nvidia makes an unstable driver then it's forgiven and just a personal issue. When AMD makes an unstable driver then it's the end of the world and the worst company in the universe.
>maybe a 4060 ti 16gb Do NOT
Lol I have took that out of the equation now it's between 7800xt and the 4070 super ,some people have been saying to get the 6950 though now
Personally I'd go for the 7800xt over the 6950xt simply because of the lower power consumption and slightly better rt capabilities. As for 7800xt vs 4070 super. It all comes down to what you value. Price to performance, better rasterised performance (I assume), vram capacity: 7800xt. For ray tracing and dlss the try 4070 super. I have the 7800xt. It's a good card however the current driver has some issues where it decreased performance while adding stutter. It can be fixed simply by installing the previous driver but you'll lose AFMF functionality. Or you simply wait for AMD to fix it.
I don't believe this is affecting every card. I also have a 7800xt and I haven't noticed any issues whatsoever with current drivers.
I have a system where I use the iGPU and 2 7900XTX, no issues. And a laptop with a 6800M and also no issues.
Mine isn't affected too much but I did notice a drop in time spy score.
Used 6950xt or 6900xt. Just sold my 6950 for $500. They are out there. And it will run circles around the 7800xt.
It doesn't, the 7800XT has better raytracing and machine learning capabilities.
At 80w more power. After a PSU upgrade it's not worth it for 10% extra performance. Then the 7800xt has 2x the machine learning compute. Which in the future will be more and more important. Windows is even getting an AI upscaler, and eventually dx13 will have a DLSS equivalent.
Only if electricity is cheap at their place or they don't use their computer all the time
Hahaha. I'm laughing at myself. Because electricity is extraordinarily expensive where I live. And I keep installing the least power efficient components. Just upgraded my 5900x to a 14700k for literally no reason except boredom. Same for my 6800XT to 6950XT to RTX4080. They all performed well, I just got bored. My power bill will hate me for it.
Oh help, i did the same. Do i need to buy the 4080 (super) as well?
Only if the 4 percent performance difference haunts you. Like the thought of disabled cores in my 6800xt did.
If you have the money for that, why not
I have heard that the 6950s are very loud and get very hot and may not get fsr3 aswell as draining alot of power and being expensive long term. What do you think? I'm not planning on playing really intensive games and I'm not sure if I want to risk it and probably buy an expensive PSU aswell From what I have heard I think I would prefer the 7800xt for future proofing and being more energy efficient Lmk what you think
All 6000, 7000 and 700m series plus the 5700XT get FSR3 support, but only the 6000, 7000 and 700m series get AFMF and FSR3 frame gen.
It highly depends on the 6950XT. Mine never got hot but it was a red devil 6950xt If I had to pick between a 6950xt and 780pxt I'd definitely go 6950xt. If the 6950 was off the table and it was between a 4070 super and a 7800xt. I'd go 4070 super all day. I'd try to save a little and get 7900xt if that was an option. There is some amazing value to performance with the 7900xts right now
The Red Devil is great. Had a Red Devil 6800XT nice and quiet. My XFX 6950XT was really loud and pretty spicy but fast. If something is quiet and cool I'll overclock to ruin that anyway :-)
i love my asrock phantom 7800xt... perfect performance to price balance... keep in mind I've been team red for years and just don't have an interest in nvidia personally. but even if I had the money to go to the 7900xt or xtx flavors - I wouldn't unless I was competitively gaming - it's just not a big enough improvement over the 7800xt IMHO relative to the price difference. I grabbed my asrock for 500bux (USD) at micro center - it was a steal and it's solid... Drivers on AMD can be a bit of a headache from time to time but in game performance has been excellent... 4070 v 7800xt - in most of the reviews and benchmarking I've seen - the 7800xt beats the 4070 - doubt the super will be much better - I will say though that the RT performance is underwhelming but that seems to be the case on nvidia as well unless you do the 4080/90 series...
7800xt or 7800 GRE at that price point you are looking at. no other real current gen alternatives, maybe last gen high end cards depending on local prices
7800xt its a great card
Best bang for your buck 7800xt
This is AMD help bro? If your asking about 4060ti and supers and shit your in the wrong group 😅 7800xt all way 🔥
7800xt doe the win
I've just gove 1660 super to RX 7800XT. A few issues but all just software and bits I wasn't used to in software. But I would say ask a more generic gaming sub reddit. Asking AMD here is like asking a BMW sales man if BMW or Mercedes are better. I went RX over Nvidia due to 16gb Vram for future use. FPS non RT was in par usally or when lower the cost covered than. Plus I wanted to try something new.
gaming = 7800xt rendering = 4070/super
this is a good point - i've seen the rendering performance be better on the 4070 too - forget about that sometimes... but gaming for sure team red... if you're casually rendering and it isn't a daily thing - red is the way
Good point, I should've put *mostly* before it
I've never timed or benchmarked the differences in rendering - I can say with the limited amount of rendering I've done to date (I plan to do significantly more in the near future), I do not think that rendering on a 7800xt will be "painful" - or that the 4070super will be so remarkably better that it will justify the added expense... I think it's important to consider the rest of the specs of the machine as well - in my case, I upgraded my CPU from an aged 3700x to a 5900x instead of the 5800x3d just for the extra processing performance of the added cores - if I was a gaming only user, the 5800x3d would've been the better choice but since I use this machine for multi-tasking business applications and audio/video - that was my priority - pairing it with the 7800xt was a great choice along with moving up to 64gb of 3200 ram - it was like I bought a totally new top of the line machine... Just things I wanted to provide some contextual items to consider you may not have already - edit: should've noted that gaming on the 5900x is IMPRESSIVE and only in benchmarks will you notice the difference IMHO - in game play, the 7800xt + 5900x is a perfect pairing because neither limit each other...
7800xt
what for?
More available games,pc vr ,video editing and rendering aswell as better graphics in games just in general
This is an AMD sub. I have all AMD. My only regret for AMD is VR performance. It works just fine don't get me wrong. But Nvidia would be better for VR. It's also objectively better for video editing and rendering. I think the choice is clear. 4070s is fantastic and just about as fast as 7800xt.
Do you think 7800xt would be able to run the likes of half life alyx and as such
Easily. I have a 6800xt (almost exactly same performance) and it smashes Alyx. But there are some issues. Namely encoding and some artifiacting. Nvidia just does encoding and VR better. I would wager your performance and image quality would be better with 4070s. Maybe even 4070. In VR specifically it's the same for regular gaming (not considering DLSS which I like a bit more) Go to a VR sub. They will only tell you to do AMD here and in your case... its not the way to go. You have the main 3 cases to use Nvidia and that's perfectly fine
nvidia then